but we should always be grateful for how much blood the Russians shed fighting our common enemy (far, FAR more than we did).
You mean the common enemy that they cut a deal with and allowed to conquer Western Europe without so much as firing a shot? Heck, it's worse than that -- they invaded several innocent and neutral countries (Finland, the Baltic States) while Hitler was enjoying his free hand in the West.
If the Russians had allied with the Western Allies in 1939 Germany would have been crushed and the Great Patriotic War would never have happened. Let's try not to forget that.....
I'm afraid your analysis misses the point. It was never Hitler's intention to conquer Western Europe or the Mediterranean. It was always his intention to try and conquer land in the East. His actions in Western Europe were holding actions intended at preventing Germany from having to fight a two-front war. He didn't have any designs on Western Europe beyond preventing them from interfering in the struggle that was about to unfold in the east.
I don't know as if you can say that Barbarossa was one of the "greatest military blunders" in history either. If the dice rolls had come up just a little bit differently it's entirely possible that Germany could have won the war. If Italy hadn't needed to be rescued in the Balkans (the invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece delayed the start of Barbarossa for several weeks) or if the British had sought a negotiated peace it's probable that the Germans would have won and the Cold War would have been fought between the United States and the Third Reich.
As it happened the Russians only managed to hold the line by drowning the German invaders in Russian blood. Go look at the casualties on the Eastern Front. Even when they "won" battles the Soviet Union usually lost two or three times as many men as the Germans did.
While we Americans were sitting on our rears eating bon-bons
Why shouldn't we have been sitting on our rears eating bon-bons? You think it's the job of the United States to intervene in foreign wars? We did that in WW1 and got nothing out of it -- our supposed Allies ignored Wilson's plan for a just and fair peace and imposed draconian terms on Germany that set the stage for WW2. Then they defaulted on their wartime debts to the US. With that bit of history in mind perhaps it's easier to understand why the US had a strong isolationist sentiment in the 30s?
Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.
The Russians made their own bed when they cut a deal with Hitler to slice up Eastern Europe. Had they joined forces with the Allies in 1939 it's probable that Germany would have been crushed and the Great Patriotic War would never have happened. The French had long sought an alliance with the Soviet Union to counter the threat of Germany but Stalin wasn't interested. He wanted the European powers to beat the stuffing out of each other to strengthen his own position. He even supplied Germany with the raw materials (ranging from grain to steel) required to keep her war machine running.
The West owes Russia no debt for her actions in WW2.
but its clear the whole game romanticizes Americans.
Imagine that. You'd almost think the game was written by an American gaming company or something.....
Seriously, who cares? Who cares if the game presents Americans as wholesome apple pie eaters and Russians as murderous baby rapers? Is this really something to get Governments worked up about? Shouldn't the story here be about censorship rather than game content? Make a game that portrays Americans in a negative light and sell it here -- I doubt our Government will feel the need to prevent our people from buying it.
The fact is that in environments where there are no handguns to speak of (Canada) the number of gun crimes of opportunity and passion, and accidental discharges, by citizens carrying guns is very low
Two problems with this statement:
1) Canada is not a "handgun free" zone. There may be less handguns per capita than in the US, but private ownership of handguns isn't prohibited as it is in other (the UK) countries.
2) Even if Canada was a handgun free zone your comparison is pointless. The US is not. It never will be. An overwhelming majority of Americans support private firearms ownership, including handguns. This isn't likely to change anytime soon.
Because of course only a complete fucking idiot would fail to realize that an angry person with a holstered gun poses a greater danger to all around them than an angry person without a holstered gun.
The mere possession of a handgun does not turn an ordinary person into a murderer who will snap at the slightest provocation. You say you are interested in facts. Here's one for you to chew on: Concealed carry permits are statistically less likely to commit crimes than sworn police officers.
Like I said, I'm generally in favour of citizens owning guns, although handguns are a bit silly
Why are handguns a "bit silly"? They are useful for home protection, target shooting, hunting and concealed carry.
and gun registration is no more a big deal than car registration
Yes it is. It is a matter of historical fact that gun registration leads to gun confiscation. It's happened right here in the US (California and New York), it's happened in Germany and it's happened in Australia. It's also completely useless for solving/preventing crime. The majority of firearms used in crimes were stolen from their legitimate owners.
But until people on both sides of the debate take an inclusive view of the pertinent facts
What "pertinent facts" do you think I'm disregarding?
The only disinformation I see is coming from the Democrats. Illegal immigrants won't be covered under the health bill? Yes they will -- at the ER for free just as they currently do. If you already have insurance you can keep it? No you can't. The Government is going to tell the insurance companies what kind of policies they have to sell. Want a high-deductible plan and HSA or flex spending account? Sorry, your out of luck. We aren't going to let you do that.
The only redeeming thing is that it isn't going to see the light of day because the Democratic party is going to implode on the issue of abortion. Oh the irony. I love seeing the liberals all huffy and puffy about your "right to choose" while they try to advance legislation that takes away your right to do just that.
Yes, we've seen that before. [barackobama.com] Important "news" from our Dear Leader!
You forgot to mention the part where they wanted citizens to "help us out" by reporting dissent directly to the White House. I guess they gave up on that idea though. Wonder what would have been the reaction if GWB had tried to do the same thing?
The parent of my post mentioned Fox. My counterpoint was that MSNBC is Fox News for Democrats. Watch Keith Olbermann sometime. All you have to do to convert him to Sean Hannity is change his talking points around a bit.
The law disagrees with you. In most US jurisdictions you are allowed to respond to a rape/kidnapping or murder attempt with deadly force, i.e: you can shoot them. You are not allowed to do the same to an assault/battery attempt unless a reasonable person would fear for their life in your situation.
In the meantime, while waiting for one of those highly improbable fantasy scenarios to occur, you and your handgun will be a danger to everyone around you.
Please explain to me how a holstered handgun that is hidden from public view represents a danger to anyone.
but there is also an increase in accidental deaths and the use of handguns in crimes of passion and opportunity.
Statistically speaking, those with concealed carry permits are less likely to commit crimes than sworn police officers. Perhaps we should disarm the police to prevent crimes of passion and opportunity?
It is not at all clear that prohibiting carrying of *concealed* guns is in any way a violation of the second amendment.
The right is the right to keep and bear arms. If the state wants to outlaw concealed carry then it should allow open carry.
It is fairly easy in both of the states you mention explicitly (Il & WI) to legally obtain firearms.
Bullshit. In IL you can't obtain any sort of firearm unless you have a firearm owners identification card issued by the state police. Somehow I don't think you'd agree that the spirit of the 1st amendment was being upheld if you needed permission from the state before you could buy a printer or use the connection.
It's also not going to protect me against drowning, but I really don't see how either example leads to the conclusion that carrying a firearm is a wasted effort.
Really? I've seen statistics that suggest that your lifetime chance of being a victim of violent crime ranges anywhere from 35% to 60%, depending on where you live and other factors. I haven't seen statistics on the odds of being struck by a meteorite but I'm going to assume that it's less than that....
No, the lesson to be learned from the golden age of piracy is that a ship capable of mounting significant firepower is frickin' *big* and hence hard to hide, and they're expensive, so the pirates can't easily replace them.
It should also be noted that "significant firepower" in this day and age is generally harder to come by than it was in those days. During the golden age of piracy it was possible (though hugely expensive) to acquire sufficient firepower as to give yourself a fighting chance against most models of warship. Doing the same in this day and age is going to be next to impossible.
Now, if that assumption holds true, I absolutely think that the crew's lives are more important than a few hundred thousand worthless vietnamese sneakers. I'd rather the pirates didn't get anything at all, but lives are lives.
It has nothing to do with the value of the cargo. It has everything to do with stripping the sailors of their right to self-defense. You would not be obligated or expected to surrender without a fight to a kidnapping attempt that occurred on land. In fact, in US jurisdictions (including liberal ones like New York) you are allowed to respond with deadly force to any such attempt. So why do we disarm our sailors and leave them with no means to defend themselves against this horrible crime? Kidnapping ranks right up there with rape as a violation of the person. The only worse crime is murder.
Also, I suspect piracy would be less of a problem if people would stop registering ships in tax-shelter countries with laughably small navies.
Just think of the trouble a common merchant ship would have, if it came into a US port with a 5" deck gun, and a couple 50 cal machine guns mounted up on it.
Who said anything about deck guns? You could defend against these attacks with semi-automatic rifles and handguns.
It may be better to lose the occasional ship to pirates, than to be fighting an all-out war.
What, "all-out war"? Is the failed state of Somalia going to declare war on the United States and/or EU? Seems rather unlikely. We aren't dealing with a nation-state here. We are dealing with criminals and terrorists. The right of self-defense applies. I would not be obligated to meekly surrender to a kidnapping attempt that occurred on land without a fight. Why should our merchant marine sailors be obligated to do so?
say a 20% chance of death or a 100% chance of a months (conservative) improsonment? which would you choose?
I would choose the former. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees and all that. If you choose to fight back then you are keeping control of your destiny. If you choose to surrender then you are placing your destiny in the hands of criminals.
Besides, as an American, I'm not inclined to surrender without a fight. There's a history (ranging from the Bataan Death March to Daniel Pearl) of my countryman being tortured and/or murdered after surrendering. I'd rather take a few of the bastards out with me and die clutching my gun than suffer that fate, thank you very much.
Slashdot Mirror
but we should always be grateful for how much blood the Russians shed fighting our common enemy (far, FAR more than we did).
You mean the common enemy that they cut a deal with and allowed to conquer Western Europe without so much as firing a shot? Heck, it's worse than that -- they invaded several innocent and neutral countries (Finland, the Baltic States) while Hitler was enjoying his free hand in the West.
If the Russians had allied with the Western Allies in 1939 Germany would have been crushed and the Great Patriotic War would never have happened. Let's try not to forget that.....
I'm afraid your analysis misses the point. It was never Hitler's intention to conquer Western Europe or the Mediterranean. It was always his intention to try and conquer land in the East. His actions in Western Europe were holding actions intended at preventing Germany from having to fight a two-front war. He didn't have any designs on Western Europe beyond preventing them from interfering in the struggle that was about to unfold in the east.
I don't know as if you can say that Barbarossa was one of the "greatest military blunders" in history either. If the dice rolls had come up just a little bit differently it's entirely possible that Germany could have won the war. If Italy hadn't needed to be rescued in the Balkans (the invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece delayed the start of Barbarossa for several weeks) or if the British had sought a negotiated peace it's probable that the Germans would have won and the Cold War would have been fought between the United States and the Third Reich.
As it happened the Russians only managed to hold the line by drowning the German invaders in Russian blood. Go look at the casualties on the Eastern Front. Even when they "won" battles the Soviet Union usually lost two or three times as many men as the Germans did.
I'm curious what America's response would be to their people being demonized.
There would be a lot of whining but I'll wager that our Government wouldn't feel the need to prohibit our people from buying the game.....
That's a small little difference between the US and Russia that most people in this discussion seem to be omitting.
While we Americans were sitting on our rears eating bon-bons
Why shouldn't we have been sitting on our rears eating bon-bons? You think it's the job of the United States to intervene in foreign wars? We did that in WW1 and got nothing out of it -- our supposed Allies ignored Wilson's plan for a just and fair peace and imposed draconian terms on Germany that set the stage for WW2. Then they defaulted on their wartime debts to the US. With that bit of history in mind perhaps it's easier to understand why the US had a strong isolationist sentiment in the 30s?
Love them or hate them, forced by circumstances or not, the Russians did more to save Western Europe from Nazism than anyone else.
The Russians made their own bed when they cut a deal with Hitler to slice up Eastern Europe. Had they joined forces with the Allies in 1939 it's probable that Germany would have been crushed and the Great Patriotic War would never have happened. The French had long sought an alliance with the Soviet Union to counter the threat of Germany but Stalin wasn't interested. He wanted the European powers to beat the stuffing out of each other to strengthen his own position. He even supplied Germany with the raw materials (ranging from grain to steel) required to keep her war machine running.
The West owes Russia no debt for her actions in WW2.
but its clear the whole game romanticizes Americans.
Imagine that. You'd almost think the game was written by an American gaming company or something.....
Seriously, who cares? Who cares if the game presents Americans as wholesome apple pie eaters and Russians as murderous baby rapers? Is this really something to get Governments worked up about? Shouldn't the story here be about censorship rather than game content? Make a game that portrays Americans in a negative light and sell it here -- I doubt our Government will feel the need to prevent our people from buying it.
The fact is that in environments where there are no handguns to speak of (Canada) the number of gun crimes of opportunity and passion, and accidental discharges, by citizens carrying guns is very low
Two problems with this statement:
1) Canada is not a "handgun free" zone. There may be less handguns per capita than in the US, but private ownership of handguns isn't prohibited as it is in other (the UK) countries.
2) Even if Canada was a handgun free zone your comparison is pointless. The US is not. It never will be. An overwhelming majority of Americans support private firearms ownership, including handguns. This isn't likely to change anytime soon.
Because of course only a complete fucking idiot would fail to realize that an angry person with a holstered gun poses a greater danger to all around them than an angry person without a holstered gun.
The mere possession of a handgun does not turn an ordinary person into a murderer who will snap at the slightest provocation. You say you are interested in facts. Here's one for you to chew on: Concealed carry permits are statistically less likely to commit crimes than sworn police officers.
Like I said, I'm generally in favour of citizens owning guns, although handguns are a bit silly
Why are handguns a "bit silly"? They are useful for home protection, target shooting, hunting and concealed carry.
and gun registration is no more a big deal than car registration
Yes it is. It is a matter of historical fact that gun registration leads to gun confiscation. It's happened right here in the US (California and New York), it's happened in Germany and it's happened in Australia. It's also completely useless for solving/preventing crime. The majority of firearms used in crimes were stolen from their legitimate owners.
But until people on both sides of the debate take an inclusive view of the pertinent facts
What "pertinent facts" do you think I'm disregarding?
The only disinformation I see is coming from the Democrats. Illegal immigrants won't be covered under the health bill? Yes they will -- at the ER for free just as they currently do. If you already have insurance you can keep it? No you can't. The Government is going to tell the insurance companies what kind of policies they have to sell. Want a high-deductible plan and HSA or flex spending account? Sorry, your out of luck. We aren't going to let you do that.
The only redeeming thing is that it isn't going to see the light of day because the Democratic party is going to implode on the issue of abortion. Oh the irony. I love seeing the liberals all huffy and puffy about your "right to choose" while they try to advance legislation that takes away your right to do just that.
Yes, we've seen that before. [barackobama.com] Important "news" from our Dear Leader!
You forgot to mention the part where they wanted citizens to "help us out" by reporting dissent directly to the White House. I guess they gave up on that idea though. Wonder what would have been the reaction if GWB had tried to do the same thing?
The parent of my post mentioned Fox. My counterpoint was that MSNBC is Fox News for Democrats. Watch Keith Olbermann sometime. All you have to do to convert him to Sean Hannity is change his talking points around a bit.
Too bad MSNBC doesn't have one. Then we could get our warped view of the world from both political extremes.....
The law disagrees with you. In most US jurisdictions you are allowed to respond to a rape/kidnapping or murder attempt with deadly force, i.e: you can shoot them. You are not allowed to do the same to an assault/battery attempt unless a reasonable person would fear for their life in your situation.
So what do you suggest? Nobody can carry firearms because a minority of people can't handle them?
1 cm = 1 megafuckload kilometers = 0.621371192 megafuckload miles
Fixed that for you ;) Remember, this is an American site with American readers whom might not be familiar with the metric system ;)
In the meantime, while waiting for one of those highly improbable fantasy scenarios to occur, you and your handgun will be a danger to everyone around you.
Please explain to me how a holstered handgun that is hidden from public view represents a danger to anyone.
but there is also an increase in accidental deaths and the use of handguns in crimes of passion and opportunity.
Statistically speaking, those with concealed carry permits are less likely to commit crimes than sworn police officers. Perhaps we should disarm the police to prevent crimes of passion and opportunity?
It is not at all clear that prohibiting carrying of *concealed* guns is in any way a violation of the second amendment.
The right is the right to keep and bear arms. If the state wants to outlaw concealed carry then it should allow open carry.
It is fairly easy in both of the states you mention explicitly (Il & WI) to legally obtain firearms.
Bullshit. In IL you can't obtain any sort of firearm unless you have a firearm owners identification card issued by the state police. Somehow I don't think you'd agree that the spirit of the 1st amendment was being upheld if you needed permission from the state before you could buy a printer or use the connection.
You are obviously an idiot who can't reads simple English.
That's better than not being able to write simple English ;)
It's also not going to protect me against drowning, but I really don't see how either example leads to the conclusion that carrying a firearm is a wasted effort.
Really? I've seen statistics that suggest that your lifetime chance of being a victim of violent crime ranges anywhere from 35% to 60%, depending on where you live and other factors. I haven't seen statistics on the odds of being struck by a meteorite but I'm going to assume that it's less than that....
I think you watch too many movies.....
I get that, I just don't understand why it's relevant.
No, the lesson to be learned from the golden age of piracy is that a ship capable of mounting significant firepower is frickin' *big* and hence hard to hide, and they're expensive, so the pirates can't easily replace them.
It should also be noted that "significant firepower" in this day and age is generally harder to come by than it was in those days. During the golden age of piracy it was possible (though hugely expensive) to acquire sufficient firepower as to give yourself a fighting chance against most models of warship. Doing the same in this day and age is going to be next to impossible.
If you have a point it's lost on me.
Now, if that assumption holds true, I absolutely think that the crew's lives are more important than a few hundred thousand worthless vietnamese sneakers. I'd rather the pirates didn't get anything at all, but lives are lives.
It has nothing to do with the value of the cargo. It has everything to do with stripping the sailors of their right to self-defense. You would not be obligated or expected to surrender without a fight to a kidnapping attempt that occurred on land. In fact, in US jurisdictions (including liberal ones like New York) you are allowed to respond with deadly force to any such attempt. So why do we disarm our sailors and leave them with no means to defend themselves against this horrible crime? Kidnapping ranks right up there with rape as a violation of the person. The only worse crime is murder.
Also, I suspect piracy would be less of a problem if people would stop registering ships in tax-shelter countries with laughably small navies.
No argument there.
Just think of the trouble a common merchant ship would have, if it came into a US port with a 5" deck gun, and a couple 50 cal machine guns mounted up on it.
Who said anything about deck guns? You could defend against these attacks with semi-automatic rifles and handguns.
It may be better to lose the occasional ship to pirates, than to be fighting an all-out war.
What, "all-out war"? Is the failed state of Somalia going to declare war on the United States and/or EU? Seems rather unlikely. We aren't dealing with a nation-state here. We are dealing with criminals and terrorists. The right of self-defense applies. I would not be obligated to meekly surrender to a kidnapping attempt that occurred on land without a fight. Why should our merchant marine sailors be obligated to do so?
say a 20% chance of death or a 100% chance of a months (conservative) improsonment? which would you choose?
I would choose the former. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees and all that. If you choose to fight back then you are keeping control of your destiny. If you choose to surrender then you are placing your destiny in the hands of criminals.
Besides, as an American, I'm not inclined to surrender without a fight. There's a history (ranging from the Bataan Death March to Daniel Pearl) of my countryman being tortured and/or murdered after surrendering. I'd rather take a few of the bastards out with me and die clutching my gun than suffer that fate, thank you very much.